Rayner to reveal government’s response to Grenfell Inquiry today: here are some of the final report’s key recommendations

The government’s response to the Grenfell Inquiry’s final report is expected to be announced tomorrow afternoon, according to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

Deputy prime minister Angela Rayner will read out an oral statement in the House of Commons around 1.30pm on Wednesday setting out how the government will respond to the inquiry’s 58 recommendations for improving safety in the built environment.

Keir Starmer had promised to provide his full response to the inquiry’s final report within six months of its publication on 4 September last year.

The 1,700-page report looked into the causes of the fire which killed 72 people in June 2017 and came after seven years of hearings, including evidence from those involved in the building’s refurbishment and government ministers and officials responsible for fire safety in the years leading up to the fire.

Coming less than three years after the 2022 Building Safety Act, a watershed review of building safety regulations implemented in response to the fire, Rayner’s response has the potential to unleash another period of adaptation to the industry.

Here are some of the report’s most significant recommendations.

The creation of a single regulator for the entire construction industry

The report argued that the arrangements under which the industry was regulated had, over the course of time, become too complex and fragmented. At the time of the fire, the department now known as the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government was responsible for building regulations and statutory guidance, the business department was responsible for regulating products and the Home Office was responsible for fire and rescue services. Building control was shared between local authorities and approved inspectors operating as businesses, while law enforcement on the sale of products was carried out by Trading Standards. “In our view, this degree of fragmentation was a recipe for inefficiency and an obstacle to effective regulation,” the report said.

In arguably the report’s most significant recommendation, the government was asked to create a single independent regulator headed by one individual reporting to one secretary of state. It said this would provide a focal point in driving change in the industry while allowing information to be shared more efficiently between those responsible for different parts of the industry. It would mean a much more radical centralisation of regulatory functions than the current post-Grenfell arrangements, which the report criticised as “remaining dispersed”.

Functions to be within the scope of the proposed ‘super-regulator’ would include: 

• the regulation of construction products

• the development of suitable methods for testing the reaction to fire of materials and products intended for use in construction

• the testing and certification of such products

• the issue of certificates of compliance of construction products with the requirements of legislation, statutory guidance and industry standards

• the regulation and oversight of building control

• the licensing of contractors to work on higher-risk buildings

• monitoring the operation of the Building Regulations and the statutory guidance and advising the Secretary of State on the need for change

• carrying out research on matters affecting fire safety in the built environment

• collecting information, both in this country and abroad, on matters affecting fire safety

• exchanging information with the fire and rescue services on matters affecting fire safety

• accrediting fire risk assessors

• maintaining a publicly available library of test data and publications

The definition of a higher-risk building to be reviewed

In another major recommendation with potential to cause a lot of headaches in the industry, the report has recommended an “urgent” review of what buildings should be classed as ‘higher risk’ and be subject to much more stringent regulatory requirements.

Currently, the definition applies to buildings with at least two dwellings which are at least 18 metres in height, or around seven storeys. Already this interpretation has resulted in dozens of schemes across the country being redesigned, some with the loss of entire buildings, in order to add extra fire safety measures including second staircases.

However, the report concludes that the reference only to a building’s height is “essentially arbitrary in nature”, with the use of the building and the likely presence of vulnerable people for whom evacuation could be difficult considered to be more relevant. Influential organisations including RIBA have called for the definition to include all ‘assembly buildings’, which encompass any building where people might congregate, including schools, theatres, cinemas, conference centres, train stations, airports and gyms.

The appointment of a chief construction advisor

One of the easier to implement recommendations, the chief construction advisor would function as an expert individual “who has a good working knowledge and practical experience of the construction industry”, who ministers could turn to for advice.

Unlike former chief construction advisors such as Paul Morrell, who were effectively “lone wolves” in government – as one expert described them – without a large office of supporting staff, the new role as envisaged by the inquiry would have a substantial budget and staff in order to provide advice on all matters affecting the industry.

This would include monitoring all aspects of work relating to the Building Regulations and statutory guidance and providing advice to the secretary of state on request. It would also include “bringing to the attention of the secretary of state any matters affecting the Building Regulations and statutory guidance or matters affecting the construction industry more generally of which the government should be aware”.

A review of Approved Document B

The report called for Approved Document B, the part of the regulations dealing with fire safety, to be reviewed “as a matter of urgency”. This would take into account the evidence provided to the inquiry by expert witnesses including Arup’s Barbara Lane, none of which was significantly challenged during the proceedings.

The document must then be kept under continuous review, amended annually or promptly when needed and drafted “conservatively” to ensure compliance with it will provide a high degree of confidence that a completed building will comply with the regulations. 

The report had stated in its conclusions that the document at the time of the fire was “poorly worded and liable to mislead designers into thinking that complying with its terms would inevitably ensure that the building would comply with the legal requirements of the Building Regulations”. It added that the government department responsible for the regulations had “failed actively to monitor the performance of the system and failed to ensure that dangers of which it became aware were communicated to industry”.

The profession of fire engineer to be regulated

The term ‘fire engineer’ does not currently denote a formal qualification, something which the inquiry said has allowed some individuals to perform the role without the necessary competence. It also said the complexity of the subject matter is not well understood. 

The report called for the profession to be formally recognised and both the title and function protected by statute. It also urged the creation of an independent body to regulate the profession, define the standards required for membership, maintain a register of members and regulate their conduct. 

“Over time that would create a body of registered fire engineers who are capable of contributing to the design and delivery of safe buildings and of educating those construction professionals with whom they work in effective fire safety strategies.”

A licensing scheme for contractors working on higher risk buildings

The design and build contract makes the main contractor responsible for all aspects of a scheme, despite different aspects being carried out by subcontractors. The inquiry criticised Rydon, the contractor which carried out Grenfell Tower’s flawed refurbishment, for failing to make it clear which subcontractor was responsible for aspects of the project and for failing to take an “active interest” in fire safety. “We are not the first to conclude that the construction industry as a whole needs to become technically more competent and less willing to sacrifice quality to speed and cost,” the report said.

It called for a licensing system for firms wishing to work on higher risk buildings, aiming to ensure they are “qualified by experience and organisation” to do so. This scheme would be operated by the construction regulator and would be a legal requirement for any application for building control approval on both construction and refurbishment projects at gateway 2.